Saturday, April 13, 2013

Thank a Rich Person

Do you like your car? Thank a rich person. 100+ years ago, cars were the playthings of rich people. Early 20th century cars cost as much as a house. Rich people bought cars as status symbols and had chauffeurs to drive them around. What a bunch of stuffed shirts! But as more cars were sold, manufacturers found ways to make them cheaper. Henry Ford wanted to build cars for everyman, and his Model T assembly line did exactly that.
Do you like your phone? Thank a rich person. The telephone was primitive and expensive when first introduced. My paternal grandparents’ family didn’t even have one during part of the 1930s because of the cost. Calling out of town was an extra expense until recently, when unlimited long distance plans became common. The cell phone, introduced 40 years ago, was at first primitive, bulky and expensive to buy and use. Now, just about everybody has one, and smart phones are becoming the norm. This progress was made possible by the people who could first afford phones – the rich.
Do you like your computer? Thank a rich person. Personal computers were very expensive when they were first produced. They were toys for people who could afford them. I knew someone who had an early computer in 1977. He’d spent about $5,000 on it, equivalent to nearly $19,000 in 2012. That much money today would buy a couple dozen decent computers today – computers with vastly more power and storage than the primitive 1977 toy.
Do you like having a job? Thank a rich person. Money-making enterprises are never founded by, say, a person living under the Bijou Street Bridge in Colorado Springs. Somebody with an idea and/or money to invest finds a thing or a service that people want. In producing the product, the entrepreneur earns more money and hires people. If the product becomes popular, the person hires more workers. We’ve seen a lot of this in the tech sector – companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google have become some of the most valuable. The wealth and jobs they have generated and the products they offer have made life much better.
Do you like having a clean environment? Thank a rich person. Especially thank the engine that allowed people to get rich – free-market capitalism. The wealth created by entrepreneurs permits us to care about more than mere survival. Long before there was an EPA, citizens began demanding a cleaner environment. Furthermore, many products had side effects that helped the environment. John D. Rockefeller’s kerosene saved the whales – it removed the need for whale oil to light the night. Central heating reduced indoor air pollution from burning wood in stoves and fireplaces.
The rich are much vilified by the left. Wealthy citizens are criticized for not paying enough taxes, when they pay a disproportionately high percentage of income tax. The top 1% pay about 37% of the income tax. The top 10% pay about 68%. But the bottom 50% pay only about 3%, and many of those pay nothing or get money back through the so-called Earned Income Tax Credits. The people who are most productive in our economy and who provide most of the employment for everybody else are also taxed the most.
If you are a wealthy person, thank you for your contribution to the economy. If you are a person who thinks the rich should “give back” by paying even higher taxes than the exorbitant amounts they already do, you haven’t learned the moral of the golden goose.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, April 06, 2013

Colorado a Model for Gun Control

President Obama once again blew a million or two dollars on a trip to my state to pitch his anti-freedom agenda. This time, it was to gin up support for gun control by visiting the usual gang of idiots in Denver. On April 3, 2013, Obama declared that “…Colorado [is] a model for passing tough new gun control…”.
 
Colorado is a model all right. It’s a model for stupid, unconstitutional, unenforceable gun control laws passed in haste by Democratic legislators with fact-free opinions on guns. Here’s some info on these laws.
·       HB 1224 limits ammo magazines to 15 rounds. But it also bans magazines modifiable to more than 15 rounds, which includes many magazines of 15 rounds or less. In addition, a person must have “continuous control” of a magazine. This can be interpreted to mean that if you hand an empty magazine to a friend or relative, you’ve committed a crime.
·       HB 1229 charges gun buyers for the cost of background checks. I don’t think middle class or wealthy people will find that particularly onerous. But poorer people, who are subject to the most crime, will find it that much harder to get a weapon for self defense. If you think that police can protect everybody everywhere and nobody needs a gun, maybe you think that the fire department can keep your house from catching fire, too.
·       HB 1229 expands background checks to all sales, including private ones. This is completely unenforceable. The alleged shooter of Colorado’s corrections chief Tom Clements got the gun used from a woman who bought the gun legally. Police say she transferred the gun to Evan Ebel. Do you think that this law would have prompted her to tell Ebel to get a background check first? If you do, perhaps you’ve been enjoying too many of the now-legal Colorado ciggies.
Another Colorado model is Rep. Diana DeGette, one of the dimmest stars of the Democratic Party, and a pusher of federal freedom-limiting gun laws. In a single forum on anti-gun rights laws, she said at least three idiotic things. First, she blissfully blathered that ammo magazines are bullets that get used up. A bit later, she had a dialog with a senior citizen who was asking why he couldn’t have a large magazine for a gun if a heavily-armed bad guy broke into his home. She first told him that the police were mere minutes away. (We know, of course, that when seconds count, minutes might as well be years.) Then, Rep. DeGette then politely told the man “You’d be dead anyway if [the bad guy] had that kind of firepower”. Hmm. This sounds like an admission that bad guys will still be able to get big firepower, but law-abiding citizens won’t. And it’s condescending, insulting, fact-free, stupid and typical of DeGette’s ilk. Diana DeGette doesn’t represent my district, but I will give at least a few bucks to whoever opposes her next year.